"The fact that a 19-year-old American citizen was one of the dead -- among those whom the report concluded was "summarily executed" by the Israelis -- makes the U.S. Government's silence here all the more appalling. One of the prime duties of a government is to safeguard the welfare of its own citizens. It's inconceivable for most governments in the world to remain silent in the face of formal findings that a foreign nation "summarily executed" one of its own citizens.

One of the reasons Turkey was so emphatic in its condemnation of Israel was because the dead were Turkish citizens; that's what governments do when a foreign nation kills its own citizens. Yet not only does the U.S. Government sit silently, but its prior statements defending Israel were disgustingly cavalier. Virtually the entire world -- literally -- vehemently condemned Israel for what it did here, yet the U.S. refused and continues to refuse to do so, notwithstanding these findings that one of its own citizens was essentially murdered."

"The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution. Furkan Dogan and Ibrahim Bilgen were shot at near range while the victims were lying injured on the top deck. Cevdet Kiliclar, Cengiz Akyuz, Cengiz Songur and Cetin Topcuoglu were shot on the bridge deck while not participating in activities that represented a threat to any Israeli soldier.

In these instances and possibly other killings on the Mavi Marmara, Israeli forces carried out extralegal, arbitrary and summary executions prohibited by international human rights law, specifically article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

I would rather hear the truth, which is that they don't give a shit, than be lied to. Maybe if more people heard that they wouldn't be boarding freelance flotillas of ambiguous mission and entering environs where they would quite likely be killed.

That aside, how exactly is our government supposed to protect "its own people" when they leave the country voluntarily and put themselves in harmful situations?

The unfair bias against Israel by the media in reporting on this incident and the UN in the title of it's report is self evident. The use of the incorrect term "flotilla" makes the Israelis sound as bad as possible. There is another term for this fleet of ship that has been used for generations, that is much more accurate and gives a better perspective on what happened.

Flotilla is a general term, that is vague and not the most accurate term to describe what the Israelis encountered. Here is the definition of flotilla.

Assumption of risk is a defense in the law of torts, which bars a plaintiff from recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which he was participating at the time of his injury.

Our great grandparents knew that if a blockage runner got cut in half by a cannonball that was a risk they assumed. The UN and news organizations know this as well which is why don't use the long accepted correct terminology.

As blockade runners they knew that there was a high likelihood that they would run into the Israeli navy. They also knew that if they attacked the Israelis they would lose but be able to win sympathy from bleeding hearts in the west, because reporting of it would be biased. Calling blockade running flotilla a simple flotilla shows this bias.

Euna Lee (Hangul:유나 리) (born 1972) is a South Korean-born American journalist who has worked for Current TV since 2005. Lee and fellow journalist Laura Ling were detained in North Korea after they crossed into the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from the People's Republic of China without a visa. The United States Government protested the sentences, and implemented diplomatic efforts in order to secure the release of both Lee and Ling. On 4 August 2009 Lee and Ling were pardoned by th Lee w...

Sad that anyone was so stupid and malevolent as to go on any of these "flotillas". As for the Turks, self-declared Muslim Brotherhood jihadists dying to die for Allah and kill Israelis in the process stir only relief that they are dead.

They carried out an act of war, and died as they wished. You can watch their pathetic declarations of desired death in jihad on the website of the Turkish news-site Hurriyet.

Israel has done everything legally and with as much humanity as they can. It is inconceivable that the "weby"s of this world are lining up to cheer self-declared death-monsters like Islamic jihadists in their murderous actions against this tiny nation. Oh, by they way, they're massacring Christians all over the Middle East, terrorising Europe and sexually abusing children and spreading their Islamofascist OIC-backed tentacles all over America. Just another day at the jihadist office...

So nice to feel that you can exhibit your antiSemitism with no penalty, eh, weby?

'nuffsaid wrote:Sad that anyone was so stupid and malevolent as to go on any of these "flotillas". As for the Turks, self-declared Muslim Brotherhood jihadists dying to die for Allah and kill Israelis in the process stir only relief that they are dead.

They carried out an act of war, and died as they wished. You can watch their pathetic declarations of desired death in jihad on the website of the Turkish news-site Hurriyet.

They carried out an "act of war" by travelling in international waters?

Pray tell, how?

Now there is a word for boarding a ship against the owners wishes in interantional waters, it is called "piracy".

Their declarations of jihad constituted an act of war, especially since it was sponsored by the Turkish government. Turkey is increasingly Islamic and has joined forces with Iran against Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood has declared its intention to conduct a "Grand Jihad" against the US and undermine the West. The IHH is associated with the hamas and Hezbollah, also MB offshoots. Hamas is committed to the obliteration of Israel, the Turks were acting inconcert with them. All the Turkish participants are Hamas cronies.

Jihad by definition is war against unbelievers.

And don't be fatuous - these Turkish thugs were not "travelling". They deliberately set out to break the Gaza blockade and/or die for Allah.

Nice try with the "piracy" epithet - it's been refuted elsewhere already. Israel acted perfectly legally under maritime law in relation to the Turkish Thugboat.

'nuffsaid wrote:Their declarations of jihad constituted an act of war, especially since it was sponsored by the Turkish government. Turkey is increasingly Islamic and has joined forces with Iran against Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood has declared its intention to conduct a "Grand Jihad" against the US and undermine the West. The IHH is associated with the hamas and Hezbollah, also MB offshoots. Hamas is committed to the obliteration of Israel, the Turks were acting inconcert with them. All the Turkish participants are Hamas cronies.

Jihad by definition is war against unbelievers.

And don't be fatuous - these Turkish thugs were not "travelling". They deliberately set out to break the Gaza blockade and/or die for Allah.

Nice try with the "piracy" epithet - it's been refuted elsewhere already. Israel acted perfectly legally under maritime law in relation to the Turkish Thugboat.

Really.

Show me the article in said "maritime law" that says that.

It has been a while since I studied international law, but this should be fun.

Strictly speaking, none of what you posted constities an act of war in any way shape or form, but capturing a vessel traveling under another nations flag in international waters, now that is an act of war.

The Israeli actions were an armed attack on a vessel travelling under the flag of a Nato member state as defined in article 6 of the NATO treaty which should, in accordance with the article 51 of the Charta of United Nations and article 5 of teh NATO treaty lead to automatic aid and assistance of all NATO members to the attacked NATO member, in this case Turky.

Just for shits and giggles, let us look up what an act of war actually is, according to USC 18 Â§ 2331:

(4) the term â??act of warâ?? means any act occurring in the course ofâ??(A) declared war;(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

So, we either need a nation state or at least a military AND an armed conflict for an act of war, so just to make this very clear:

Travelling in international waters is not an act of war.

Declaring Jihad, if declared by a civilian is not an act of war.

9-11 was no act of war.

Crossing the US border is not an act of war, unless you do it in a tank, as part of an army.

Killing US border patrols, also not an act of war, neither is selling drugs, money laundering, posting threats on the internet or whatever else gets to be called an "act of war" these days.

'nuffsaid wrote:Their declarations of jihad constituted an act of war, especially since it was sponsored by the Turkish government. Turkey is increasingly Islamic and has joined forces with Iran against Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood has declared its intention to conduct a "Grand Jihad" against the US and undermine the West. The IHH is associated with the hamas and Hezbollah, also MB offshoots. Hamas is committed to the obliteration of Israel, the Turks were acting inconcert with them. All the Turkish participants are Hamas cronies.

Jihad by definition is war against unbelievers.

And don't be fatuous - these Turkish thugs were not "travelling". They deliberately set out to break the Gaza blockade and/or die for Allah.

Nice try with the "piracy" epithet - it's been refuted elsewhere already. Israel acted perfectly legally under maritime law in relation to the Turkish Thugboat.

Really.

Show me the article in said "maritime law" that says that.

It has been a while since I studied international law, but this should be fun.

Strictly speaking, none of what you posted constities an act of war in any way shape or form, but capturing a vessel traveling under another nations flag in international waters, now that is an act of war.

The Israeli actions were an armed attack on a vessel travelling under the flag of a Nato member state as defined in article 6 of the NATO treaty which should, in accordance with the article 51 of the Charta of United Nations and article 5 of teh NATO treaty lead to automatic aid and assistance of all NATO members to the attacked NATO member, in this case Turky.

Just for shits and giggles, let us look up what an act of war actually is, according to USC 18 Ã?Â§ 2331:

(4) the term Ã¢??act of warÃ¢?? means any act occurring in the course ofÃ¢??(A) declared war;(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

So, we either need a nation state or at least a military AND an armed conflict for an act of war, so just to make this very clear:

Travelling in international waters is not an act of war.

Declaring Jihad, if declared by a civilian is not an act of war.

9-11 was no act of war.

Crossing the US border is not an act of war, unless you do it in a tank, as part of an army.

Killing US border patrols, also not an act of war, neither is selling drugs, money laundering, posting threats on the internet or whatever else gets to be called an "act of war" these days.

It doesn't matter. Every Palestinian is a bloodthirsty terrorist and deserves to die (as well as anyone supporting them).

'nuffsaid wrote:Their declarations of jihad constituted an act of war, especially since it was sponsored by the Turkish government. Turkey is increasingly Islamic and has joined forces with Iran against Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood has declared its intention to conduct a "Grand Jihad" against the US and undermine the West. The IHH is associated with the hamas and Hezbollah, also MB offshoots. Hamas is committed to the obliteration of Israel, the Turks were acting inconcert with them. All the Turkish participants are Hamas cronies.

Jihad by definition is war against unbelievers.

And don't be fatuous - these Turkish thugs were not "travelling". They deliberately set out to break the Gaza blockade and/or die for Allah.

Nice try with the "piracy" epithet - it's been refuted elsewhere already. Israel acted perfectly legally under maritime law in relation to the Turkish Thugboat.

Really.

Show me the article in said "maritime law" that says that.

It has been a while since I studied international law, but this should be fun.

Strictly speaking, none of what you posted constities an act of war in any way shape or form, but capturing a vessel traveling under another nations flag in international waters, now that is an act of war.

The Israeli actions were an armed attack on a vessel travelling under the flag of a Nato member state as defined in article 6 of the NATO treaty which should, in accordance with the article 51 of the Charta of United Nations and article 5 of teh NATO treaty lead to automatic aid and assistance of all NATO members to the attacked NATO member, in this case Turky.

Just for shits and giggles, let us look up what an act of war actually is, according to USC 18 Ã??Ã?Â§ 2331:

(4) the term Ã?Â¢??act of warÃ?Â¢?? means any act occurring in the course ofÃ?Â¢??(A) declared war;(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

So, we either need a nation state or at least a military AND an armed conflict for an act of war, so just to make this very clear:

Travelling in international waters is not an act of war.

Declaring Jihad, if declared by a civilian is not an act of war.

9-11 was no act of war.

Crossing the US border is not an act of war, unless you do it in a tank, as part of an army.

Killing US border patrols, also not an act of war, neither is selling drugs, money laundering, posting threats on the internet or whatever else gets to be called an "act of war" these days.

It doesn't matter. Every Palestinian is a bloodthirsty terrorist and deserves to die (as well as anyone supporting them).

Didn't you get the memo?

Maybe, it must by under my "Why I hate America, freedom and applepie" pamphlets.

So, we either need a nation state or at least a military AND an armed conflict for an act of war, so just to make this very clear:

Oh, you mean like between Israel and Hamas....How'd you overlook that? Seriously, how does anyone opine on the matter and completely forget this? That right there legitimizes the use of blockades.

SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE

Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:

(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;(b) the high seas; and(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

Are some of them good? Sure. There's a great town called Taybeh where I've had a some wonderful times. (It's also shelled and burned by its neighbors because it produces beer and is Christian.) Lots of Germans were good people, too, circa 1943. Heck, lots of Nazis were good. Indeed, lots of the Pharoah's troops that chased Israelites across the Red Sea were good.

War, in general, sucks.

The PA is in a state of war with Israel. It is in their constitution to destroy Israel and kill the Jews.

These ships were part of a propaganda trip to break the embargo so they can get weapons to kill Jews. Period.

Israel is more than happy to let the Gazan arabs and the arabs in East Jersalem have their own country, provided they agree they won't use said new country as a staging area to kill us.

The arabs refuse this reasonable request.

Israel is remarkably restrained. No other country would have put up with this crap for 60 years, and would have pushed them into the sea long ago.

So, we either need a nation state or at least a military AND an armed conflict for an act of war, so just to make this very clear:

Oh, you mean like between Israel and Hamas....How'd you overlook that? Seriously, how does anyone opine on the matter and completely forget this? That right there legitimizes the use of blockades.

SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE

10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:

(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;(b) the high seas; and(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: